ZNet
CommentarySilence In The Service Of Power June 03, 2006 By David
Cromwell

In November last year, as many as 24 Iraqi civilians - among
them 11 womenand children - were killed by US marines in Haditha, western
Iraq. The NewYork Times has described the atrocity as possibly "the gravest
caseinvolving misconduct by American ground forces in Iraq". Initial US
armyreports had suggested the Iraqis died from a makeshift bomb, a lie that
wasswiftly replaced by another: that the civilians had been killed in
crossfirebetween marines and 'insurgents'.

In fact, the evidence
indicates that the victims were killed during a"sustained" attack by US
forces lasting between three and five hours. Deathsoccured "inside at least
two homes that included women and children". Theslaughter was "methodical in
nature". (Thom Shanker, Eric Schmitt AndRichard A. Oppel Jr., 'Military
Expected to Report Marines Killed IraqiCivilians,' New York Times, May 25,
2006)

Many of the victims were killed "execution-style," shot in the head
or inthe back. One US government official said that the US marines had
"suffereda total breakdown in morality and leadership, with tragic results".
(TonyPerry and Julian E. Barnes, 'Photos Indicate Civilians
SlainExecution-Style,' Los Angeles Times, May 27, 2006)

Eman Waleed,
9, a survivor of the atrocity, was interviewed by Timemagazine. Eman lived
close to the site of the roadside bomb that killed amarine. She "heard a lot
of shooting, so none of us went outside. Besides,it was very early, and we
were all wearing our nightclothes." US marinesthen entered her family's
house:

"First, they went into my father's room, where he was reading the
Qur'an,"she said, "and we heard shots."

Next, the marines entered the
living room:

"I couldn't see their faces very well - only their guns
sticking into thedoorway. I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the
chest and then inthe head. Then they killed my granny."

Eman says the
troops fired towards the corner of the room where she and heryounger
brother, Abdul Rahman, 8, were hiding. The other adults were killedshielding
the children from the bullets:

"We were lying there, bleeding, and it
hurt so much. Afterward, some Iraqisoldiers came. They carried us in their
arms. I was crying, shouting, 'Whydid you do this to our family?' And one
Iraqi soldier tells me, 'We didn'tdo it. The Americans did.'" (Suzanne
Goldenberg, 'Marines may face trialover Iraq massacre,' The Guardian, May
27, 2006)

US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld told US news channels that
theallegations are being investigated thoroughly and would be handled "in
thenormal order of things". (Al-Jazeera, 'US troops killed Iraqis "in
coldblood",' May 19, 2006; http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/887CEBF0-DF83-4D99-9BD2-9F14BAC4DA7C.htm)

The
Times (London) notes that: "the damage limitation has already begun."The
paper explains:

"Lawyers who have talked to the Marines emphasise the
extreme pressure thatthey were facing that day. The insurgents had mounted a
wave of attacks, andthe town was one of the most dangerous in Iraq for US
troops." (Ali Hamdani,Ned Parker, Nick Meo and Tom Baldwin, 'The Marines and
a "massacre" inIraq,' The Times, May 27, 2006)

Damage limitation
includes shifting blame back on to the Iraqis:

"Marine officers have long
been worried that Iraq's deadly insurgency couldprompt such a reaction by
combat teams." (Perry and Barnes, op. cit.)

Andrew Murray, chair of the
Stop the War Coalition, said:

"It's clear that what happened in Haditha
is a war crime. It would be idleto think this is the first war crime that
has been committed in the lastthree years. It must be assumed that more of
this is going on." (RaymondWhitaker, 'The massacre and the Marines,'
Independent on Sunday, May 28,2006)

For example, independent
journalist Dahr Jamail wrote recently:

"On March 15th, 11 Iraqis, mostly
women and children, were massacred by UStroops in Balad. Witnesses told
reporters that US helicopters landed near ahome, which was then stormed by
US troops. Everyone visible was rounded upand taken inside the house where
they were killed. The victims' ages rangedfrom six months to 75 years."
(Jamail, 'How massacres become the norm',April 4, 2006; http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040406Z.shtml)

Readers will
recall our recent media alert highlighting a BBC Newsnightfilm, based on the
testimony of US veterans, that provided evidence for theroutine killing of
Iraqi civilians. To our knowledge, the film generated nocoverage in the
British press. ('You Could Kill Whoever You Wanted To',April 19, 2006;http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060419_you_could_kill.php)

Media
Amplification of the Mythology of 'Mistakes'

As we have repeatedly noted
in our media alerts, the 'news' is often whatpowerful leaders want it to be.
Consider an online BBC news article whichchannelled President Bush and Prime
Minister Blair's hand-wringingpronouncements on their "mistakes in
Iraq":

"The two leaders have never admitted their mistakes in such frank
terms, theBBC's Jonathan Beale says... BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan
Marcussays Iraq has cast a shadow over the leaders' careers and both were
seekingto play up the potential for change afforded by the
newdemocratically-elected government in Baghdad." ('Bush and Blair
admiterrors,' BBC news online, May 26, 2006;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5016548.stm)

The
vital missing context from this report, and BBC news programmesgenerally, is
as follows. The UK (though not the US) is a signatory to thetreaty that set
up the International Criminal Court (ICC). Underpinning theICC are the
Geneva conventions and the 1945 Nuremberg charter. The latterstates
clearly:

"To initiate a war of aggression ... is not only an
international crime, itis the supreme international crime, differing only
from other war crimes inthat it contains within itself the accumulated evil
of the whole."(http://www.counterpunch.org/herman05112006.html)

The BBC
tells us that Bush and Blair now admit "mistakes" in Iraq and that"Iraq has
cast a shadow over the leaders' careers." But the publicly-fundedbroadcaster
has yet to report that Bush and Blair have committed crimes; infact, "the
supreme international crime" as defined at the Nuremberg trials.

What
does the British press have to say on the matter? On May 26, 2006
weconducted a newspaper database search covering the period since the
invasionof Iraq on March 20, 2003. We searched for articles addressing
thepossibility that Tony Blair might have committed the "supreme
internationalcrime". We could find only six such articles; two of those were
by JohnPilger.

Certainly, there have been newspaper reports that
mentioned moves to impeachTony Blair, a campaign led by Plaid Cymru MP Adam
Price. A few reports inJanuary 2006 noted that General Sir Michael Rose, the
British UN commanderin Bosnia, had called for Blair to be impeached. The
news reports thatmentioned the grounds for impeachment were couched in terms
of the PrimeMinister having "misled the country in the run-up to war." But
the moredamning indictment of having committed the supreme international
crime oflaunching a war of aggression, and the context of the Nuremberg
judgement,is entirely missing. Of the 190 press reports in over three years
thatmention the impeachment campaign, we could not find even one report
thatincluded this basic context.

There have also been newspaper
reports about Malcolm Kendall-Smith, theairforce officer who was jailed in
April for eight months for refusing toserve in Iraq. The press reports
explained that Kendall-Smith had challengedthe legality of the invasion and
occupation. "Nuremberg" was mentioned in atotal of 34 of these news stories
as the basis for Flight LieutenantKendall-Smith's defence. But details and
context were once again lacking. Inparticular, not one press report
explicitly stated that Bush and Blair couldbe charged with the "supreme
international crime" of conspiring to launch awar of aggression under the
Nuremberg charter.

The closest approximation to the truth was in press
reporting of the RAF'slegal argument in Kendall-Smith's court case. The
argument was that no"individual service personnel could be implicated in
'crimes of aggression'[because] these were a 'leadership crime' which the
Nuremberg trialsestablished could not be committed by an individual not in a
position todictate state policy." (Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, 'RAF
doctorrefused Iraq return because "invasion was unlawful",' March 16,
2006)

This tortuous wording avoided any direct indication that Bush and
Blair areculpable for the supreme international crime.

The "Bad
Argument" That Launched An Invasion

In his book, Lawless World, Philippe
Sands QC comments on the AttorneyGeneral, Lord Goldsmith's, legal advice,
dated March 17, 2003, giving Blairthe green light to go to war without a
second UN resolution:

"It is a bad argument, and very few states and
virtually no establishedinternational lawyers see its merits." (Sands,
Lawless World, Penguin, 2006,p.189)

Just ten days earlier, the
Attorney General had issued a carefully wordeddocument which had been full
of caveats about the possibility of any legalcase supporting an invasion of
Iraq. Sands told the BBC that he hadconsulted with fellow barristers and
they had concluded:

"A little-noticed passage of the Attorney
General's 7 March advice pointedout that 'aggression is a crime under
customary international law whichautomatically forms part of domestic law'.
Those most closely associatedwith the initiation of recent events in Iraq
may also want to avoid holidaysin those countries that have criminalized the
planning, preparation orconduct of aggressive war." (Sands, op. cit., pp.
282-283)

Critical comments about Blair and Bush's invasion and occupation
of Iraqhave, of course, been made by newspaper columnists. But we have not
seenanyone who has explained that Bush and Blair would be found guilty by
thestandards applied at Nuremberg.

One columnist who has at least
called for Blair's impeachment is theIndependent's Andreas
Whittam-Smith:

"[Bush and Blair] cannot admit failure. Their periods in
office are ruined.Their reputations are tarnished. In theory they could use
Saturday'sannouncement of a new Iraqi government as a reason to get out. But
they aretrapped. And more lives will be unnecessarily lost before the agony
is over.

"The US President and the British Prime Minister really should
be impeached,but I don't suppose they will be." (Whittam-Smith, 'Now the US
and Britaincan declare victory in Iraq and bring their troops back home,'
TheIndependent, May 22, 2006)

It is entirely unsurprising that Bush
and Blair are not under sustainedpressure to face impeachment - the
establishment media and political system,virtually en masse, has rejected
even the possibility.

Despite overwhelming legal opinion on the
illegality of the war, and hugepublic opposition to the invasion and
occupation, not a single editorial inany British national newspaper has, as
far as know, ever stated that westernleaders ought to stand trial before the
International Criminal Court. Notone newspaper in its leader column has
called for Blair to be impeached forwar crimes. The editorial silence from
the Guardian, Independent, FinancialTimes, Daily Telegraph, The Times and
the rest is shameful..

A British Prime Minister may launch a war of
aggression, cause death andsuffering on an unimaginable scale, and +still+
not be held to account bythe supposed 'watchdogs' of
democracy.

Further proof, if any were needed, that the British media is
indeed aguardian of brutal and destructive power.

David
Cromwell is co-author, with David Edwards, of the recent Media Lensbook
'Guardians of Power: The Myth Of The Liberal Media'. For furtherdetails,
including reviews, interviews and extracts, please click here: